Lai Quirino, Vitale Alessandro
General Surgery and Organ Transplantation Unit, Department of Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Padua University, Padua, Italy.
Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Sep 14;3:61. doi: 10.21037/tgh.2018.09.07. eCollection 2018.
Milan criteria (MC) represents the cornerstone in the selection of patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) waiting for liver transplantation (LT). MC represent the precursor of the scores based on the idea of "utility": in other terms, the scoring systems typically used in the field of LT oncology present the exclusive aim of selecting the cases with the best post-LT outcomes. However, some other scores have been proposed specifically investigating the risk of death or tumour progression during the waiting list. In this case, the selection process is connected with the idea of "priority": patients at higher risk for drop-out (DO) should be selected, prioritising them or, conversely, deciding to de-list them due to the high risk of post-LT futile transplant. Lastly, models based on the concept of "benefit", namely the balancing between priority and utility, have been recently created. The present review aims to examine these three different types of scoring systems, trying to underline their pro and cons in the allocation process of HCC patients.
米兰标准(MC)是肝细胞癌(HCC)患者等待肝移植(LT)时选择的基石。米兰标准是基于“效用”理念的评分系统的前身:换句话说,肝移植肿瘤学领域通常使用的评分系统的唯一目的是选择肝移植后预后最佳的病例。然而,已经提出了一些其他评分系统,专门研究等待名单期间的死亡风险或肿瘤进展风险。在这种情况下,选择过程与“优先级”的概念相关:应选择退出风险(DO)较高的患者,对他们进行优先排序,或者相反,由于肝移植后无效移植的高风险而决定将他们从名单中除名。最后,最近创建了基于“益处”概念的模型,即优先级和效用之间的平衡。本综述旨在研究这三种不同类型的评分系统,试图强调它们在肝癌患者分配过程中的优缺点。